Biomechanics of the sensor-tissue interface - Effects of motion, pressure, and design on sensor performance and foreign body response - Part II: Examples and application

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 647-656

  Helton, Kristen L ^a,c   Ratner, Buddy D ^a   Wisniewski, Natalie A ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Medical Device Consultancy   (United States)

^c PROFUSA Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Biocompatibility; Biomechanics; Foreign body response; Glucose sensor; Micromotion; Pressure

Indexed keywords

COLLAGEN; GLUCOSE OXIDASE; POLYURETHAN; BIOMATERIAL; GLUCOSE;

BIOCOMPATIBILITY; BIOMECHANICS; BLOOD FLOW; BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITOR; DURA MATER; FOREIGN BODY REACTION; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; GLUCOSE INTAKE; GLUCOSE SENSOR; HUMAN; HYDROGEL; IN VITRO STUDY; INFLAMMATORY CELL; INTERSTITIAL FLUID; LASER DOPPLER FLOWMETRY; MECHANICAL STIMULATION; MECHANICAL STRESS; MICROVASCULATURE; MONITOR; MOTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM; NONHUMAN; PRESSURE; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SKIN BLOOD FLOW; SUBCUTANEOUS TISSUE; SURFACE PROPERTY; UPREGULATION; VASCULARIZATION; ANIMAL; DIABETES MELLITUS; DOG; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; MOTION; POROSITY; RAT; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SELF CARE; SWINE;

ANIMALS; BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS; BIOMECHANICS; BLOOD GLUCOSE; BLOOD GLUCOSE SELF-MONITORING; DIABETES MELLITUS; DOGS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GLUCOSE; HUMANS; MOTION; POROSITY; PRESSURE; RATS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF CARE; SWINE;

EID: 84858756238     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19322968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/193229681100500318     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (64)

1. Helton KL, Ratner BD, Wisniewski N. Biomechanics of the sensor-tissue interface - effects of motion, pressure and design on sensor performance and the foreign body response - part I: theoretical framework. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(3):632-46.
2. Mjöberg B. The theory of early loosening of hip prostheses [review]. Orthopedics. 1997;20(12):1169-75. (Pubitemid 27521670)
3. Weinbaum S, Cowin SC, Zeng Y. A model for the excitation of osteocytes by mechanical loading-induced bone fluid shear stresses. J Biomech. 1994;27(3):339-60. (Pubitemid 24061729)
4. Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43(2):192-203. (Pubitemid 28246972)
5. Huiskes R, Weinans H, Vanrietbergen B. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1992;274:124-34.
6. Søballe K, Hansen ES, Rasmussen HB, Jørgensen PH, Bünger C. Tissue ingrowth into titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated implants during stable and unstable mechanical conditions. J Orthop Res. 1992;10(2):285-99.
7. Aspenberg P, Goodman S, Toksviglarsen S, Ryd L, Albrektsson T. Intermittent micromotion inhibits bone ingrowth. Titanium implants in rabbits. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992;63(2):141-5.
8. Prendergast PJ, Huiskes R, Søballe K. Biophysical stimuli on cells during tissue differentiation at implant interfaces. J Biomech. 1997;30(6):539-48. (Pubitemid 27214187)
9. Gilligan BJ, Shults MC, Rhodes RK, Updike SJ. Evaluation of a subcutaneous glucose sensor out to 3 months in a dog model. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(8):882-7. (Pubitemid 24235512)
10. Castle JR, Ward WK. Amperometric glucose sensors: sources of error and potential benefit of redundancy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(1):221-5.
11. Mauras N, Beck RW, Ruedy KJ, Kollman C, Tamborlane WV, Chase P, Buckingham BA, Tsalikian E, Weinzimer SA, Booth AD, Xing DY. Lack of accuracy of continuous glucose sensors in healthy, nondiabetic children: results of the Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) accuracy study. J Pediatr. 2004;144(6):770-5. (Pubitemid 38858095)
12. El-Khatib FH, Jiang J, Damiano ER. Automated blood-glucose regulation in diabetic swine using bi-hormonal and insulin-only closed-loop control systems. 69th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association; 2009 Jun 5-9; New Orleans (LA); 2009. Abstract Number: 426-P.
13. Breton MD, Patek SD, Farret A, Place J, Demartini S, Brown S, Anderson S, Kovatchev BP, Renard E. Safety supervision system: first clinical trials. Proceedings of the Fourth Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes Annual Meeting; 2011 Feb 16-19; London, UK. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(2):176.
14. Renard EM, Farret A, Place J, Cobelli C, Kovatchev BP, Breton MD. Closed-loop insulin delivery using subcutaneous infusion and glucose sensing, and equipped with a dedicated safety supervision algorithm, improves safety of glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes; 2010 Sep 20-24; Stockholm, Sweden.
15. Petrofsky JS, McLellan K, Prowse M, Bains G, Berk L, Lee S. The effect of body fat, aging, and diabetes on vertical and shear pressure in and under a waist belt and its effect on skin blood flow. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(2):153-60.
16. Gilligan BC, Shults M, Rhodes RK, Jacobs PG, Brauker JH, Pintar TJ, Updike SJ. Feasibility of continuous long-term glucose monitoring from a subcutaneous glucose sensor in humans. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2004;6(3):378-86. (Pubitemid 38821624)
17. Gilletti A, Muthuswamy J. Brain micromotion around implants in the rodent somatosensory cortex. J Neural Eng. 2006;3(3):189-95. (Pubitemid 44262019)
18. Garg SK, Schwartz S, Edelman SV. Improved glucose excursions using an implantable real-time continuous glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(3):734-8. (Pubitemid 38280542)
19. Kvist PH, Iburg T, Dawson HD, Jensen HE. Effect of subcutaneous glucose sensor implantation on skin mRNA expression in pigs. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(10):791-9.
20. Ward WK, Troupe JE. Assessment of chronically implanted subcutaneous glucose sensors in dogs: the effect of surrounding fluid masses. ASAIO J. 1999;45(6):555-61. (Pubitemid 30017346)
21. Koschwanez HE, Yap FY, Klitzman B, Reichert WM. In vitro and in vivo characterization of porous poly-L-lactic acid coatings for subcutaneously implanted glucose sensors. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;87(3):792-807.
22. Koschwanez HE, Reichert WM, Klitzman B. Intravital microscopy evaluation of angiogenesis and its effects on glucose sensor performance. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;93(4):1348-57.
23. Long N, Yu B, Moussy Y, Moussy F. Strategies for testing long-term transcutaneous amperometric glucose sensors. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(6):927-36. (Pubitemid 43134000)
24. Ju YM, Yu BZ, West L, Moussy Y, Moussy F. A novel porous collagen scaffold around an implantable biosensor for improving biocompatibility. II. Long-term in vitro/in vivo sensitivity characteristics of sensors with NDGA- or GA-crosslinked collagen scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;92(2):650-8.
25. Henning T. Commercially available continuous glucose monitoring systems. In: Cunningham DD, Stenken JA, editors. In vivo glucose sensing, volume 174. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2009.
26. Prichard HL, Schroeder T, Reichert WM, Klitzman B. Bioluminescence imaging of glucose in tissue surrounding polyurethane and glucose sensor implants. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(5):1055-62.
27. Klueh U, Liu ZH, Cho B, Ouyang TM, Feldman B, Henning TP, Kaur M, Kreutzer D. Continuous glucose monitoring in normal mice and mice with prediabetes and diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006;8(3):402-12. (Pubitemid 46100534)
28. Anderson JM. Biological responses to materials [review]. Ann Rev Mater Res. 2001;31:81-110. (Pubitemid 33073846)
29. Thomé-Duret V, Aussedat B, Reach G, Gangnerau MN, Lemonnier F, Klein JC, Zhang Y, Hu Y, Wilson GS. Continuous glucose monitoring in the free-moving rat. Metabolism. 1998;47(7):799-803. (Pubitemid 28313184)
30. Ward WK, Jansen LB, Anderson E, Reach G, Klein JC, Wilson GS. A new amperometric glucose microsensor: in vitro and short-term in vivo evaluation. Biosens Bioelectron. 2002;17(3):181-9. (Pubitemid 34142598)
31. Subbaroyan J, Martin DC, Kipke DR. A finite-element model of the mechanical effects of implantable microelectrodes in the cerebral cortex. J Neural Eng. 2005;2(4):103-13. (Pubitemid 41740528)
32. Kvist PH, Iburg T, Bielecki M, Gerstenberg M, Buch-Rasmussen T, Hasselager E, Jensen HE. Biocompatibility of electrochemical glucose sensors implanted in the subcutis of pigs. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006;8(4):463-75. (Pubitemid 44735466)
33. Updike SJ, Shults MC, Gilligan BJ, Rhodes RK. A subcutaneous glucose sensor with improved longevity, dynamic range, and stability of calibration. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(2):208-14. (Pubitemid 30071026)
34. Maynard EM, Fernandez E, Normann RA. A technique to prevent dural adhesions to chronically implanted microelectrode arrays. J Neurosci Methods. 2000;97(2):93-101. (Pubitemid 30219450)
35. Mahmud J, Holt CA, Evans SL. An innovative application of a small-scale motion analysis technique to quantify human skin deformation in vivo. J Biomech. 2010;43(5):1002-6.
36. Von Recum A. New aspects of biocompatibility: motion at the interface. In: Lee AJC, Heimke B, Soltesz U, editors. Clinical implant materials: proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Biomaterials, 1989 Sep 7-9; Heidelberg, Germany. Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier Science Pub. Co; 1990.
37. Gant RM, Abraham AA, Hou Y, Cummins BM, Grunlan MA, Coté GL. Design of a self-cleaning thermoresponsive nanocomposite hydrogel membrane for implantable biosensors. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(8):2903-10.
38. Yu BZ, Long N, Moussy Y, Moussy F. A long-term flexible minimally-invasive implantable glucose biosensor based on an epoxy-enhanced polyurethane membrane. Biosens Bioelectron. 2006;21(12):2275-82.
39. Hilborn J, Bjursten LM. A new and evolving paradigm for biocompatibitity. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2007;1(2):110-9.
40. Sanders JE, Bale SD, Neumann T. Tissue response to microfibers of different polymers: Polyester, polyethylene, polylactic acid, and polyurethane. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;62(2):222-7. (Pubitemid 34988499)
41. Geerligs M, Peters GW, Ackermans PA, Oomens CW, Baaijens FP. Does subcutaneous adipose tissue behave as an (anti-)thixotropic material? J Biomech. 2010;43(6):1153-9.
42. Agache PG, Monneur C, Leveque JL, Derigal J. Mechanical properties and Young's modulus of human skin in vivo. Arch Dermatol Res. 1980;269(3):221-32. (Pubitemid 11207090)
43. Barel A, Courage W, Clarys P. Suction method for measurment of skin mechanical: the cutometer. In: Serup J, Jemec G, editors. Handbook of non-invasive methods and the skin. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1995. p. 335-40.
44. Diridollou S, Berson M, Vabre V, Black D, Karlsson B, Auriol F, Gregoire JM, Yvon C, Vaillant L, Gall Y, Patat F. An in vivo method for measuring the mechanical properties of the skin using ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998;24(2):215-24. (Pubitemid 28145710)
45. Diridollou S, Black D, Lagarde JM, Gall Y, Berson M, Vabre V, Patat F, Vaillant L. Sex- and site-dependent variations in the thickness and mechanical properties of human skin in vivo. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2000;22(6):421-35. (Pubitemid 32037769)
46. Gennisson JL, Baldeweck T, Tanter M, Catheline S, Fink M, Sandrin L, Cornillon C, Querleux B. Assessment of elastic parameters of human skin using dynamic elastography. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2004;51(8):980-9.
47. Hendriks FM, Brokken D, van Eemeren J, Oomens CWJ, Baaijens FPT, Horsten J. A numerical-experimental method to characterize the non-linear mechanical behaviour of human skin. Skin Res Technol. 2003;9(3):274-83. (Pubitemid 36974768)
48. Patel PN, Smith CK, Patrick CW. Rheological and recovery properties of poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate hydrogels and human adipose tissue. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005;73(3):313-9. (Pubitemid 40664297)
49. Van Houten EEW, Doyley MM, Kennedy FE, Weaver JB, Paulsen KD. Initial in vivo experience with steady-state subzone-based MR elastography of the human breast. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;17(1):72-85. (Pubitemid 36034137)
50. Wu JZ, Cutlip RG, Welcome D, Dong RG. Estimation of the viscous properties of skin and subcutaneous tissue in uniaxial stress relaxation tests. Biomedical Mater Eng. 2006;16(1):53-66. (Pubitemid 43104593)
51. Wu KS, van Osdol WW, Dauskardt RH. Mechanical properties of human stratum corneum: Effects of temperature, hydration, and chemical treatment. Biomaterials. 2006;27(5):785-95. (Pubitemid 41483829)
52. Levenson SM, Geever EF, Crowley LV, Oates JF 3rd, Berard CW, Rosen H. The healing of rat skin wounds. Ann Surg. 1965;161:293-308.
53. Brauker JH, Carr-Brendel VE, Martinson LA, Crudele J, Johnston WD, Johnson RC. Neovascularization of synthetic membranes directed by membrane microarchitecture. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29(12):1517-24.
54. Marshall AJ, Irvin CA, Barker T, Sage EH, Hauch KD, Ratner BD. Biomaterials with tightly controlled pore size that promote vascular in-growth. Polym Prepr. 2004;45(2):100-1.
55. Picha GJ, Drake RF. Pillared-surface microstructure and soft-tissue implants: effect of implant site and fixation. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996;30(3):305-12. (Pubitemid 26071919)
56. Sharkawy AA, Klitzman B, Truskey GA, Reichert WM. Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. II. Plasma-tissue exchange properties. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;40(4):586-97. (Pubitemid 28225844)
57. Updike SJ, Shults MC, Gilligan BJ, Rhodes RK. A subcutaneous glucose sensor with improved longevity, dynamic range, and stability of calibration. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(2):208-14. (Pubitemid 30071026)
58. Ward WK, Slobodzian EP, Tiekotter KL, Wood MD. The effect of microgeometry, implant thickness and polyurethane chemistry on the foreign body response to subcutaneous implants. Biomaterials. 2002;23(21):4185-92. (Pubitemid 34814987)
59. Sanders JE, Stiles CE, Hayes CL. Tissue response to single-polymer fibers of varying diameters: evaluation of fibrous encapsulation and macrophage density. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;52(1):231-7. (Pubitemid 30491001)
60. Vaddiraju S, Tomazos I, Burgess DJ, Jain FC, Papadimitrakopoulos F. Emerging synergy between nanotechnology and implantable biosensors: a review. Biosens Bioelectron. 2010;25(7):1553-65.
61. Sanders JE, Rochefort JR. Fibrous encapsulation of single polymer microfibers depends on their vertical dimension in subcutaneous tissue. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003;67(4):1181-7. (Pubitemid 37522731)
62. Holt B, Tripathi A, Morgan J. Viscoelastic response of human skin to low magnitude physiologically relevant shear. J Biomech. 2008;41(12):2689-95.
63. Matlaga BF, Yasenchak LP, Salthouse TN. Tissue response to implanted polymers: the significance of sample shape. J Biomed Mater Res. 1976;10(3):391-7.
64. Novak MT, Yuan F, Reichert WM. Modeling the relative impact of capsular tissue effects on implanted glucose sensor time lag and signal attenuation. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010;398(4):1695-705.